First, although the American Bar Association's Law Practice Management Section has contracted with American Lawyer Media, Inc. to provide managerial services for the Techshow, ALM has no involvement in seminar content, speaker selection or any other substantive aspect of the conference.

Second, the perception that "a closed group of Techshow board members gathers in a smoke-filled room to choose its friends and colleagues as speakers" is completely untrue. The entire Techshow board deliberates for months on speaker selection. It solicits, encourages and pleads for names of potential speakers from ABA members, nonmembers and nonattorneys -- in fact, virtually any source of technology information. The board issues its final approval of speakers only after lengthy, deliberate and open discussion about candidates.

Third, Wendy states that "to make room for new speakers, people who had not provided materials in time for publication were removed from the speakers' list. No matter how well they presented, no matter how fine their expertise, no matter what people wrote on the ubiquitous evaluation forms, if the speakers didn't supply handouts to the ABA board by the Jan. 10 deadline for the late-March conference, they were not invited back to speak." Techshow does not and never has adhered to any such policy.

Lack of written material is just one criterion used by the board to evaluate speakers. If a speaker has an abundance of expertise and is highly rated by audiences, he or she probably will be invited back. Speakers who repeatedly fail to provide material over several years and who receive low ratings, however, do not get asked back.

I also find it interesting that in making this point, Wendy says that "few people claim to attend the Techshow for wealth of printed material," yet she goes on to complain that the books were, this year, no longer available for free. She even admits that these are "large, heavy books that frequently were left behind." The board knows that; hence, the switch was made to CD-ROM, a move spurred by attendee requests.

I do not disagree with everything Wendy says. Like many board members, I am frustrated by the speaker-reimbursement policy that pays for hotel expenses only for the days the speaker is scheduled to lecture. This forces us to use speakers in multiple sessions, although I don't think it necessarily leads to a "same old, same old" feeling. All the speakers who received Wendy's kudos had spoken in several sessions. Good speakers can give multiple presentations; our challenge is to find them.

I strenuously disagree, however, that "more speakers were promoting themselves or their companies from the podium -- which is (formally, at least) taboo." Self-promotion remains completely taboo. Speakers are given strict written guidelines prohibiting such conduct, moderators are instructed to interrupt those who violate the guidelines, and speakers who do so are not invited back. To be sure, several sessions feature head-to-head product comparisons, and vendors can make their strongest pitches, but even these are subject to the "no selling from the podium" restriction [I moderated one such session]. I strongly urge Wendy or any other attendee who feels that a speaker violated this policy to contact me or any other board member.

Practice Does Not Make Perfect
I also am personally disappointed at the Microsoft-bashing to which Wendy alluded, but this year was hardly a low-water mark in that regard, given last year's keynote address by Jim Barksdale. The criticism that many speakers do not practice law, however, is misguided. One of the speakers Wendy preferred is Ross Kodner, a nonpracticing attorney. Many speakers, including me, are lawyers who do not practice, but who work as consultants to law firms, or even as firms' in-house chief technology or chief information officers. Should they not speak because they don't appear in court? Should writers who are attorneys not be published if they don't maintain active practices?

In fact, finding practicing attorneys who are technologically adept as well as engaging speakers is damned difficult -- and believe me, we try. If you have names, send them along. We view videotapes, listen to continuing legal education cassettes and even -- gasp! -- go to hear potential speakers in person. We don't get paid for it, either. If that makes us a bunch of "good old boys," then I guess I've flunked out of the Bert Lance School of Opportunistic Friendships.

We work hard to ensure that Techshow does not become "ossified." We listen to attendees and critics, and we try to maintain the show's "nonprofit, educational focus." It is hard work, however, and we always can use help. I'm reminded of parents of kids on my little-league team who show up for the first game full of ideas about what's wrong with our pitching and why Johnny really is a good center-fielder despite my observations at 15 cold and drizzly practices (with no parents in attendance) that Johnny can't catch a cold. We welcome more coaches; the pay is the same for everyone, so feel free to come with comments and criticism -- before opening day.